Google+ Followers

Saturday, 12 January 2013

Court challenge to the Electoral Commission

Having reviewed the findings of the Electoral Commission it is clear to see the Sir Pip has taken the lead from Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party who likewise on the referendum for Scottish Independence wanted to veer for a simple YES or NO question. Something which Westminster violently stomped on because they knew that adding such complexity would tend to force voters down the centre line and vote for greater autonomy. Sir Pip is now trying the same tactic but we do not have a Westminster to stand up for us.

The question then becomes what are we going to do about it, or as it ultimately concludes, what am I going to do about it?

The question of whether the Constables should be removed from the States is going to be confused by other issues such as should the Senators be removed from States - a campaign to retain Senators is no doubt going to be headed by the man who set Jersey on its death spiral, Pierre Horsfall and will draw a lot of votes to option C. Those who want change but want to retain the Constable will vote for Option B.

The only ECHR compliant option is option A.

If the only legal option is Option A then why are the other options even being presented?

The referendum could have asked two YES or NO questions - Do you want constables in the States? And do you want to retain the island wide mandate?

Instead it has asked two questions as one and likely skewed the results towards option Bailhache.

This is not a fair vote and someone should challenge it in Court... that someone may in the end have to be me.